Unfortunately, the 'always' weak link is 'Smarter Residents'. Never happen. You have to hide these benefits under the guise of 'technology' as easier and cheaper - provide increased comfort, convenience, and cred. Never let them know its good for them or the country. People in general? - like spoiled or damaged 12-year-olds always.

@Davemart: "... tens of thousands of home units providing electricity in Japan..." Of course - per my original comment, above. My point is that the electricity is not completely provided by the fuel cell/co-generation home system. More an engineering issue than a cost issue. There is likely required support from the utility (or solar or wind, i suppose). See: http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc02_03.html Note this is a japanese household, where I would posit that electrical demand is less than EU/US. I am optimistic and believe the concept is sound though. Further, be aware that the 'quality' of hydrogen (likely) used within a car-board fuel cell is different than that generally used on home fuel cell systems.

@Davemart: nice. though, i am skeptical that hydrogen would be a cost-effective source to provide the equivalent of an 80 to 200 amp supply typical to a residential house-size electric system. Hydrogen back-up power (hospitals, labs, etc.) is ridiculous expensive, cumbersome, and prone to constant maintenance and inspection. Though, compelling co-generation graphic at: http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc02_00.html

Finally. The policy and funding vector that will most likely enable H2 as an EV/P(H)EV range extender is residential refueling. Reformers and more sophisticated H2 source systems for appliances and other single- and multi-family home amenities have been available in Japan and Scandinavia for years with estimates in the thousands (though some sources even mentioned a million units had access). Also, Honda has been promoting FCVs and home refueling station combos for over 5 years. Hydrogen can offer that storage capacity to bridge intermittent local and grid sources of energy with more traditional grid and network sources (even bio sources). Possible extension to home heating and other appliances possible as part of a whole home solution. Multi-unit systems may be more complicated. Hopefully, industry won't drag its feet on standards, compatibility, and options.

Experts? excuse me if i express humorous disbelief. guy who reads everything to do with nuclear plants/politics NOT expert. journalist/manager/writer who researches/talks to nuclear PhDs everyday NOT expert. analyst/activist/hobbyist/non-tech-Prof who follows industry closely NOT expert. technician who works on or near energy facility for less than 10 years without policy responsibilities NOT expert. nuclear physicist/engineer PhD with 20 years on-site experience + policy consultant = expert. nuclear physicist/engineer PhD with 20 years on-site experience + policy consultant DOES NOT COMMENT on greencarcongress.com. Its nice to chat on this blog and good to have a wide range of (interesting) opinions - but keep it real.

It all depends on what kind of world you want. If you believe: that a world full of vehicles that are likely to be mostly rechargeable with very little ICE to them, that bringing 7-8 billion to near European middle class life standards (not to mention american middle class, if they still exist), that pushing technology into post-industrial and service-based levels throughout the world, and that creating the type of infrastructure and agriculture system to support all this is a worthwhile endeavour over the next generation or two, you are likely to believe that the electrical production required will be far, far above that level of power production that currently exists. You are also likely to believe that maintaining a cost of power at current levels will be required to allow all this society development to happen. You need to ask yourself by what means can we increase capacity by several fold (likely) by a method that will not conflict with less and less reliable sources of oil, gas, and coal. You need to also honestly ask yourself if you think conservation and renewable sources can provide all this. You need to ask yourself whether you can happily and socially be accepted, and prosper by living a life where you need to cut back on using power when met with difficulties such as regional brownouts, cost spikes, and renewable power business and production uncertainty. Its is nice to be principled in hopes that you will have enough resilient followers to promote your (forever in the) future vision, but practicality is a harsh and relentless mistress (usually named also as reality). Our society is built and continues to prosper based on technology and production, almost exclusively by using power. Use whatever source is necessary to meet demand cheaply and reliably. Prolonging the debate only damages that which power could help maintain and promote. Each region has a series of possible sources that can provide - it may be hydroelectric, gas, or nuclear. Expert reports are ubiquitous. Read them - they contain financial as well as health assessments, and often even employment and growth opportunities. Barely informed bickering and high-principle activism is the most inefficient and negative form of democracy and citizen participation out there.

I am always fascinated by these studies which fail to include a survey of 'what do people actually want' (imagine that) - but in a structured and policy-useful type of way. For people that have attempted 2 or more types of getting around - drive, transit, car-share, bike - what are the preferences, benefits, failings of each that they have tried? If you could afford to store, maintain, and run a car, would that be your daily preference? If you could commute at staggered hours (1-2 hours before or after normal commute times) or switch in a weekend day would you do that? Is relocating your house or work less inconvenient? How important is commute time to your lifestyle choices? How important is convenience in using a personal vehicle for your daily usage? Does congestion or wait time affect your desire to use public transit? Does the availability of bike support networks affect your choice to commute? ... and on and on... Urban planners, architects, and other consultants seem to have a simplistic ideal in mind completely removed from the value system of most people, for some reason. They hide behind notions of sustainability or health benefits or commuter congestion to avoid making the really difficult planning decisions that result in transportation layouts that support a happy and productive society - which mostly means getting to and from work, maintaining property value, and ease of completing domestic chores - all else is fluff - nice promenades, pretty transportation corridors, stylish finishes inside transit, snazzy stops or stations. The best way that government can influence improved commuter and movement flow is to facilitate communication between industries and partners that wouldn't otherwise talk - infrastructure, business locations, land developers, and tax payers. Respond to our wants and needs, do not try to adjust behaviour or facilitate 'change'.

"Using vehicles less" (LDV): Never work. Financially sustaining transit density is: 30 persons / ha (cheapest: commute frequency bus minimum - semi-hourly, 6 hours per day, M-F) (Holtzclaw, 1994). The area percentage within all 'city boundaries' in the US that meet this minimum is 4% in 2000 (Angel, 2011). The population percentage throughout the US that lives in areas with this minimum density is 27%. "" The actual amount of people within these areas that use transit or at minimum are walking distance to a transit stop, is a low double-digit percent of this 27% (estimated). "" Of all 453 designated urban areas in the US (2000), 46% had zero population living with this minimum density. "" Even New York City has only 64.7% population living in areas within this minimum density - three urban areas have greater percentages - one of them is a special boundary college town. Good Luck. Perhaps, better to improve the fuel system of the cars than improve the behavior of the drivers/residents.

kelly: I am sympathetic to your concerns about inefficient lifestyle choices, but the reality is that the US will never be Europe, they don't want to be, and we can wish all we want that people will make 'easy' and 'world-friendly' efficiency choices - the low hanging fruit, as it were. But these choices don't appear to make people happy with all their extra disposable income. I believe that we need to accept that and optimize people's choices rather than remove those choices in 'their own best interest'. A happy, productive citizen doing the not-quite-right thing is more useful than the uninspired and marginally productive enviro-hero, in the sense of getting policies done and technology implemented. Sad truism. In regards to the SUV bail-out, well, i am not an american - though i have lived off and on there for years, so i don't know all the details short of poor future demand planning on the car makers. Poor business decisions, poor risk management. who knows? In regards to irrelevant concepts -- no, no. please don't stop with these analytical conversations. I am an engineer myself - though not mechanical. This fine tuning and detailed discussion is very interesting, but to think for a second that it has real world 'selling' value or that it covers all relevant assumptions is probably naive. I often wish that there was more than the few percent of technically-minded people that would consider such information in their life choices. Carry-on noble GCC, carry on!

... continued - 'high-end purchasers should be targeted first' I think if 30% of the top 10% (income) of american drivers bought a high-end fully-electric SUV/ pick-up-equivalent in the first 5-7 years from their early 2014 availability, that would be almost 10 million bought - very successful EV penetration in my opinion. Sorry regular people, the health of the industry depends on you waiting. Ask not for EVs to be made affordable for you, but what you can do to afford a quality EV (paraphrased, as you might have noticed).

@kelly: well, i'm not an SUV driving or middle-class (yet) person myself, but the world needs a shake-up when they think that the typical $50k american family will have 'saving the earth' as anywhere on their radar when buying a new vehicle. Every new successful disruptive technology has almost always come from above - high income, early adopter types. They take risks. They want to be first. Let them. Autos are no different than mid-to-high-end entertainment systems or powerful personal computers in their selling demographic targets. I have no personal concern if 80% of all high-range EVs are $60k+ or $700/month lease for the first five years of roll-out as long as they're well-engineered and reliable. Why try to sell to everyone when the majority of engineering problems have to do with it making it on the low-end of the buyer scale - weight, pack placement, cycle expectations, etc. Those are economy-people concerns. Trying to be politically correct or popular with EV roll-out is just killing it. Further, I find it amusing to no end that many of the people on this blog get so concerned with irrelevant concepts like energy density, per kWh costing, etc. When driving styles and lifestyle concerns are so variable as to make such concepts irrelevant even with the same person driving for many different reasons (commute vs. chores vs trip). Even battery range concerns disappear when you get to F150 and full-size SUV weights. The Tesla X will be a greater bell-weather for right-demographic introductions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X. Later this year, maybe?

Its a lot more marketing and demographics than you think. It never ceases to amaze me that environmentalists continue to shoot themselves in the foot by thinking that people will buy because of studies like this. People buy because they are investing in something that makes their life better. They are less likely to buy or are part of a small minority of ideologues if they are being preached to or told it is the right thing to do. There are a lot fewer people than one would believe, irrespective of whatever simplistic polls you can find or inciteful blogs you read, that people will invest in a vehicle because it saves the earth or cuts dependency on foreign oil. Really. All other factors being equal and necessary, an EV won't win because of ethics or values. If it is not better that the current, it will not win -not even heavily subsidized. Not in the US. Which brings us to marketing and demographics. What these EV companies should be doing is targeting middle and upper-middle class people who fundamentally buy SUVs. Battery weight and price sensitivity is less of an issue with them. They are the early adopters, the non-enviro partisans, the consumers that push us beyond mediocrity. Get range extenders and sell them on the 'rarely have to fill up again at an inconvenient gas stations during your daily commute' and 'power up on your own time' messages out there and you'll be selling EV Escalades far faster than volts or the other nonsense. Convenience and comfort over ethics always. always. It is the most delicious irony that the saviors of the world will actually be those who care about it least, the McMansion owners with their heavy vehicle fleets. Imagine the Escalade pulling up beside the hybrids and limited PHEVs, and then being able to say that their vehicle is completely EV powered and that they have not used (personally, not grid) any fossil fuels (and may have on-site renewables). Watch the dirty hippies cringe for it is no longer them that have the higher moral ground. Technology acceptance is in the hands of the monied. The trickle down effect of course is that smaller vehicles - for the huddling masses - will then be available, as SUVs will make up the majority of the auto industry profit margin (hey, just like in the late 90's and early 00's). Just like super successful Apple - sell the lifestyle.

Why - oh why, is there no regulation/ promotion policy/ funding opportunities for home fuel cell fuelling in CA? This is the golden chain link that will secure a big sell for these vehicles. Of course you need stations in neighbourhoods, interstates, and malls, - and that is a deal-breaker - but people will buy mostly on the lifestyle that they imagine will improve over the BEV and ICE - that is self-directed fueling - on your own time, at your own home. Convenience and 'sticking it to the oil companies' over the noble goals of environment, pollution, and national energy security - always. always. And reduced chance of range anxiety, etc. People can nag and fuss over price and engineering issues that have not been resolved - but funny how those things get pushed magically when there is a recognized swelling of demand for something. Witness HDTVs - you couldn't get tv stations to embrace the bandwidth, technology, and programming challenges until you saw $5000 sets jumping off store shelves 5+ years ago before superbowl, series, etc. - and all willing to pay huge premums for the limited channels available at the time. 2 years later - 50%+ of all state or bigger stations are primarily or have at least one HDTV channel in their roster - that's hundreds and hundreds. Funny how that whining dissipated so quickly. Adversity (sales growth potential) is the mother of all invention (and implementation). Honda has been promoting home fuel cell systems for years - all with ISO standard recognition. Japan and scandinavia have had hydrogen heating/ home energy systems available for decades. There is hydrogen in and around millions of homes. Why not take it the last 10 feet into the garage? Further, hydrogen can be made in many and all ways depending on the circumstances - solar, grid, natural gas, bio, etc. Pick you cheapest/ most available source and go. See a few of the promotional pages... http://www.gizmag.com/honda-solar-hydrogen-fuel-cell-refueller-electric-vehicle/14049/ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57406767-48/hondas-fcx-clarity-can-power-a-home-for-6-days/ Has there been any regulatory submissions, expert reports, association comments at all on this?

People underestimate the value benefit of convenience. Make this a home-fueling option, have a 400 mile range system, and people will be breaking down your door at $5gge. If we can have natural gas appliances, H2 should make little diff - but what are the maintenance and upkeep (and capital) costs of a 'garage' model. Forget not that Scandinavia and Japan have H2 appliances in their homes - the old Honda FCEV was once modeled with a home system. Its lifestyle, people! Engineers (and those of that mindset) were not designed to know what people want - only to solve their problems - they do not represent a typical sampling of society's values and expectations.

The fascinating thing I find in those who continue to push a 'Climate change awareness' campaign, is the idea that they think that this will naturally lead to an 'emotionally healthy' change in values - witness the widespread emotional and lifelong productivity drop with this in rich countries who have needed to ration for an extended period. Further fascinating, that shaming or inducing fear will somehow make averting climate change more important than the daily dreams, goals, and values of those whose lifestyle choices include CO emitting activities. Not likely. It is as simple as weighing the balance of all the consequences of climate change against a widespread lifestyle reduction. Not going to happen, nor should it, for there is no combination of conservation, reduction, and retreat in lifestyle that will enable 7 billion people to live dignified, 1st world lower-middle class lifestyles. So, is all lost? Of course not, for consumerism, technology, and engineering are the answer as they always have been. These are the tools of improvement, advancement, and increased quality of life. Of course there is risk and uncertainty. But with these fundamental values pushed to noble ends such as in the search and development of high tech energy sources, reduced impact material extraction, and improved health and agricultural productivity with little CO emission, so can we all win. It just requires commitment and duty - and it is those things that are lacking and even being presented as contrary to sustainable and balanced-life goals. You will find that more people will contribute, and more devotedly in a healthy way, to an aspirational goal to reach than running away from a prevailing problem. That goal should be a post-scarcity society, and the result is that many of the climate change agents will be eliminated in moving toward that goal. Ask us not to consume or work less to avoid climate change but to increase in the activities we are doing to engineer an answer. Better to fail in aspiring to a world worth having than a guaranteed slow, psychologically and productivity decline and decay into a marginally lower emission but otherwise mediocre existence where no one's problems are resolved, only mitigated and offset. Climate change is a legitimate concern, but almost all of the low-hanging CO2 fruit has been picked, it is our time to push into victory not try to avoid defeat. There is no issue raised, over the timescales likely, that cannot be engineered to a solution. It is time to move us away from this begin a useless 'moral' issue that accomplishes nothing and move it to a potentially beneficial situation, as the old idiom says 'adversity is the mother of invention' even marginal and long-term uncertain adversity.

The funny thing about this controversy/ conflict/ standoff is that both sides will claim limited victory in 20-30 years because the natural evolution of technology and cost-reductions will provide low-energy, low-pollution, improved standards in all aspects of car, building, and infrastructure sectors anyway. By association, carbon intensity and imports from questionable regimes will have dropped all along with these improvements. Because energy will be less cost volatile, standards of living will have increased sharper than those times when we were subject to carbon fuel spikes. Nothing extraordinary will have caused this. There will be no successful climate change crusade (as in lifestyle clawback) or withdraw of suburban sprawl or change in median house size or change in miles travelled adjusted for population or car size proportions or drop in percentage of meat intake or spike in transit use. Electrical vehicle adoption will be no more (melo)dramatic than carburetor or lead-content change 20-30+ years ago. Any increased intensity in weather concerns, water availability volatility, changes in sea levels or wildlife biodiversity will be met with the same yawns and disinterest as they always have when compared to politics, current events, and living routine issues. Large infrastructure projects will occasionally be implemented as needed and as they always were, such as the everglades clean-up etc. Perhaps increased zoning and mild regulation, people naturally moving and adapting will continue to overcome all long-term changes that may have been predicted or forecast with little real disruption. Any significant 'climate change' suffering elsewhere in the world will be no different than the regular famines, wars, crusades, epidemics, outbreaks, and other circumstances that typically affect cultures without access to technology or infrastructure. Ho-hum the drama continues. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I am not convinced that 'every little bit helps' (we are too far gone for that) - but this 'little bit' will certainly do very little 'to help'. The money and time being wasted on this evolutionary step would be better invested in more revolutionary technology implementation. Punish not those who drive guzzlers, but reward those who develop and drive efficient new tech. More carrots and less sticks push innovation and uptake.

...and this from the country that wants to get rid of a significant source of electrical grid capacity through elimination of nuclear sources... should be interesting.

Much of the contents of this article have been hashed, rehashed and bandied around in some form or other for countless months. Though, I like that it is trying to get away from the alleged rational decisions that many perceive consumers to make in purchasing vehicles. It is probably more useful to break consumers down into demographics -- early adopters, green posers, econo-activists, cost rationals, followers, indifferents, anti-electricals, and others. These demographics are a lot more evident in buying consumer electronics, apparel, and some hobbies. Perhaps a good example is the HDTV buyer. Not really an essential product, costing way out of proportion to its rational value (at least 18+ months ago) yet -- with the increased availability of high-def channels, supporting movies, and a new ethos of gathering at the guy's house with the biggest Sunday Afternoon HDTV - the sector has grown past all rational expectations -- such is/will be with PHEVs. Utilities, manufacturers, and government would do well to see who bought HDTVs and when and where and how - for it will be they and their ilk who will propel/ invigorate PHEVs - at least in the g7 in the next 5-10. Perhaps we can get Apple to bring out an iCar so that what would otherwise be a questionable product segment may gain irrational exuberant 'brand' support. This thing can make it - but you can't depend on rational engineering specs to sell it - hey look at Beta and countless other 'superior' products that were poorly supported and promoted. A solid, consolidated and dedicated private-public presence can do it.

Encouraging. I like 2p per mile - however this is 2500# car - but, this is a UK electricity price. I like a 'realistic range' of 112 miles - however this is southern England, not Minnesota, Alberta, Stockholm or Moscow - as in cold - but it is often damp and miserable in southern england. I 'meh' on a top speed of 95mph - but like the acceleration. Big picture: it is fundamentally a commuter car that will more likely add to 8am and 6pm highway congestion rather than be something you leave in the garage 3 days out of five and then take out on the weekend for unplanned, who-knows-where trips (as in of uncertain distance or proximity to power (but range-extender gas is there if you can suffer to pay the - what is it now £1.40/L? ) -- is the lack of far range (cheap) versatility going to counter balance the convenience of home charging and 2p/mile running costs?? And are we gettiGn at least 7 years to the battery pack? And what happens to a lease and residual value when you are in year 5 of a PHEV?? Too many ifs and compromises and mehs. Subsidise it for the first 5 years down to equivalent ICE and hopefully it'll take 5% of the small car market in g7 countries from 2012 to 2018 - hopefully.

This quote, of itself, speaks to our current inability to push and incorporate technology to solve environmental and energy problems as fast as systems are available... "... Only 8% agreed that environmental groups fully understand the technologies and engineering tradeoffs required to meet CAFE targets of 50 mpg or higher..." - substitute CAFE for any enviro/energy issue. ..kind of a NIMCE-ism --> Not In My Country's Environment.

"... Why not use free market capitalistic incentives? ..." Ah capitalism, the cause of- and solution to all of the world's problems... is there anybody out there that truly believes that 'companies' give a damn about anything except their own profit and securing that profit for the foreseeable future? seriously? If there wasn't at least a glimmer of future wealth with EVs and renewables, no company would even commence R&D on these notions. As it now, they do it only grudgingly. This is precisely why China is going to crush the western world economically, technologically, AND --haha-- this is the rub, environmentally in the next 20-50 years- and only because the key to success is the interdependence of those three items - all together or nothing. Profiteering and corporate self-indulgence is kept on a tighter leash there (and its certainly helps with the technology piracy and lack of standards in the country). This 'false scarcity' chaos called 'market forces' in the western world will eventually diminish to mediocrity compared to a planned system where government corruption is small potatoes compared to the 'profitable business model' or that idea won't see the light of day' of the G7 corporate world. I, for one, welcome the time when our brightest and best decide to leave the western world's entrepreneurial and innovative hypocrisy. I choose govt corruption and lack of human rights to corporate corruption, nepotism and selfishness any day.

I worry the most about cutting edge technological process being kept back due to corporate patent/standard/coordination fighting within the industry players (e.g. plug-in interface tech, subscription models with utilities, etc.). Its unbelievable how much tech at all levels, source, delivery, auto/home/infrastructure due to corporate and to some lesser degree, government political nonsense, is being held up. The lab and scale-up business models are ready to roll out - its the lawyers and accountants gumming it up. And behavior modification is not the way - technology and a risk-toleratnt attitude is. An over-regulated society is a subdued society is a non-innovative society is a retreating and self-destructive society. Tech - the cause of, but more so, the solution to all problems and improvement of society - forget it not.

I am surprised that they expect conventional oil sources from 'known' fields to exist in 2025. I will be very surprised if conventional oil sources discovered in the Arctic within Canada's future agreed-upon economic zone in the coming decades will not cause the 'conventional' portion to grow way beyond the conventional sources now expected. Here's to hoping that CCS technology and safe, efficient 'hyper' cold platform drilling technology will be up to the task on both sources, respectively - and Canadians will find something else to do for revenue and export past 2040s.

Hard call. Hate Germany for getting rid of nuclear. Love Germany for pushing ahead with hydrogen-based range-extending infrastructure. What to do?